Parissi v. General Electric Co., Civ. A. No. 3817.
| Decision Date | 30 March 1951 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 3817. |
| Citation | 97 F. Supp. 333 |
| Parties | PARISSI v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Andros & Smith, Albany, N. Y., for plaintiff. Harry A. Smith, Albany, N. Y., of counsel.
Whalen, McNamee, Creble & Nichols, Albany, N. Y., for defendant. Fish, Richardson & Neave, Charles H. Walker, New York City, of counsel.
This action was originally brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and was removed to this court upon the petition of the defendant. The petition as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446(a) contains a statement of the facts upon which the defendant claims the right of removal. In brief, defendant states that plaintiff's claim will involve the issues of validity and infringement of patents and is, therefore, within the exclusive jurisdiction of a district court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1338(a). Defendant also states that plaintiff's claim is one of unfair competition and is joined with a substantial and related claim under the patent laws thereby affording a basis of original jurisdiction of a district court as provided in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1338(b). There is no diversity of citizenship between the parties.
Plaintiff moves to remand the action to the state court urging that this court has no jurisdiction since the claim does not arise in any manner under the law relating to patents.
It is obvious that the nature of the controversy is determinative of this motion. Recourse is then had to the complaint, since it is well-recognized that in determining whether or not the suit arises under the laws of the United States "* * * the controversy must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or by the petition for removal." Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, at page 113, 57 S.Ct. 96, at page 98, 81 L.Ed. 70; see also cases cited therein.
The complaint alleges that prior to 1943, the plaintiff was the first and sole inventor of a novel and useful electric clock; that his invention was disclosed to the defendant in confidence and with the understanding that, if the defendant desired rights in or under such invention, plaintiff was to be paid therefor; that negotiations between the parties followed, but no agreement was reached; that in 1945 application for letters patent on said invention was filed by plaintiff, copy of which was sent to defendant at its request; that a patent was issued on said application in 1948; a reissue patent was granted on August 22, 1950, and that plaintiff is sole owner of said invention and Letters Patent. The complaint further alleges that after the disclosure of the invention to defendant it was wrongfully appropriated by the defendant in the manufacture of clocks and radios resulting in its unjust enrichment in excess of one million dollars. For a second cause of action plaintiff re-alleges the above allegations, and further alleges that by reason of the sale by defendant of items embodying plaintiff's invention the market for said invention has been reduced to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $250,000.
The prayer for relief demands an accounting of the profits received by the defendant from the sales described above, and for $250,000, together with any additional appropriate relief.
The controversy most certainly appears to be a common law action based upon the theory of unjust enrichment resulting from the misappropriation of an idea obtained under a confidential relationship. The form of the action is not novel, and both state and federal precedents are available.
The following quotation taken from Wells v. Universal Pictures Co., 2 Cir., 166 F.2d 690, at page 691, would seem to be determinative of this motion. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Muse v. Mellin
...does not give rise to federal jurisdiction. Wells v. Universal Pictures Co., 2 Cir. 1948, 166 F.2d 690, 691; Parissi v. General Electric Co., D.C.N.D. N.Y.1951, 97 F.Supp. 333. Thus, the federal courts have no jurisdiction over suits to foreclose a copyright mortgage, Republic Pictures Corp......
-
Bert Lane Co. v. International Industries
...356, 73 L.Ed. 752; Eckert v. Braun, 7 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 517; Aronson v. Orlov, 1917, 228 Mass. 1, 116 N.E. 951; Parissi v. General Electric Co., D.C.1951, 97 F.Supp. 333; Miroflector Co., Inc., v. Kline, 283 App.Div. 1097, 131 N.Y.S.2d 614. See also Smith v. Dravo Corp., 7 Cir., 1953, 20......
-
Telechron, Inc. v. Parissi
...dismiss it and also moved to remand the removed action. Both motions were argued before Judge Brennan, who granted the motion to remand, 97 F.Supp. 333 and denied the motion to dismiss, 97 F.Supp. 355. Thereafter on the first day of the trial of the declaratory judgment action, which came o......
-
Telechron, Inc. v. Parissi
...New York Supreme Court action by Parissi against General Electric Co., removed to this court, and finally remanded to the state court. 97 F.Supp. 333. There are some significant differences between the allegations in the state complaint and this counterclaim here inserted upon which a jury ......